Verdemar environmentalists on the Gibraltar treaty and the environment: “It’s a Beckham goal into the top corner"

The environmental group Verdemar holds little or no hope that the future treaty on Gibraltar will serve as a tool to end the environmental malpractice that systematically occurs in the British colony. New earth fills in sight, the persistence of anchorage zones and bunkering in protected waters, and constant waste discharges into the sea are some of the situations repeatedly denounced by the group before all authorities.

For conservationists, the information that has emerged so far —always from Gibraltar— about the future document that will regulate the colony’s relationship with the EU framework points in the opposite direction: that these practices will continue despite the serious impact they cause in the Eastern Strait Special Area of Conservation (SAC), an area protected under European legislation and included in the Natura 2000 Network.

“Gibraltar has scored a goal with the treaty. It’s a Beckham goal straight into the top corner,” sums up Antonio Muñoz, spokesperson for the environmental group, after dozens of warnings to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and EU institutions. “I attended three meetings on the treaty explaining Gibraltar’s systematic irregularities to Minister Albares. And every time I went to Madrid, I came back with the same answer. That they were being discussed, but it’s not known exactly which environmental issues were addressed or under what terms. We feel defenceless”, adds Muñoz, a member of a group with all alarm bells ringing.

On 25 September, Verdemar took its demands to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. Verdemar urged the European Commission to monitor compliance with EU rules in the Strait area in light of systematic violations of EU law and agreements signed between the United Kingdom and the Twenty-Seven. During the debate, the Commission acknowledged being “aware” that Gibraltar’s practices “breach the UK’s withdrawal agreement from the European Union in environmental matters” and pointed to the future treaty on Gibraltar as a framework to resolve them. “However, what is said in Europe is far from what ultimately happens", laments the environmental spokesperson.

Verdemar believes that the future treaty between the United Kingdom and the EU on Gibraltar, currently under legal review, “must include the necessary legal mechanisms to guarantee the protection of the Natura 2000 Network, since affected citizens must have the environmental protection they so strongly demand.”

The group’s spokesperson compares Gibraltar to Orobanche densiflora, a parasitic species. “Gibraltar is becoming a parasitic plant that is parasitising the Campo de Gibraltar region", he notes.

More land in the Bay

Gibraltar has just announced a new expansion involving land reclaimed from the sea in the northern area inside the Port, where it plans a surface of 47,000 square metres (4.7 hectares), opposite Harbour Views Road, for the construction of around 1,550 homes.

More than a year ago, the government signed a preliminary agreement with TNG Global Foundation to cover the project’s cost in exchange for part of the land. This Vietnamese company is the same one building the controversial Eastside Project, a luxury complex also on reclaimed land but on the eastern side of the Rock, which includes an exclusive hotel, 1,200 sea-view homes, luxury shops and a marina for megayachts.

“Gibraltar has already expanded by about 300 hectares reclaimed from the sea within the bay. And it does so with landfill of dubious origin. Gibraltar has a million tonnes accumulated in the East area. It was a dump with not only inert waste but all kinds. The worst lies underneath and we’ve been denouncing it since the 1990s. All of that will end up in sea reclamations", argues Muñoz.

The environmentalist fears that, after the reclamations in waters adjacent to Gibraltar’s port for this new project, the next expansion will be the southern breakwater “for a hydrocarbon supply plant”. The growth of bunkering in Gibraltar is pushing its government to seek more infrastructure because they need physical space they don’t have. “All reclamations cause alterations in the Bay, in the form of changes in currents and other harm”, Muñoz stresses. Much of the rubble used in Eastside (and to be used for this project) comes from the excavation of the tunnel built under the airport.

Darren McComb, contractor for the TNG Global Foundation holding, denied in an interview with Europa Sur in June 2025 that the material used in the Eastside reclamations is contaminated. “It is material that is absolutely not contaminated, because the entire mountain has been analysed and everything is inert or non-hazardous. There is and will be no environmental impact. Politically, moreover, it’s in our interest to do things right”, he said.

Verdemar has taken legal action against the Eastside project for possible environmental offences which, after procedural back-and-forth in the courts, returned to its original jurisdiction, Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 2 in La Línea. “As of today, we have no knowledge of further developments”, the conservationist admits.

For its part, the Government of Gibraltar cited several independent studies in August 2025 to justify the eastern expansion. The administration argued (in response to opposition from the GSD) that the current project had undergone “rigorous environmental assessments, backed by the European Union”, and that it is being developed transparently through the planning process under the supervision of the Development and Planning Commission (DPC), an independent body.

The marina arm “was carefully considered by the DPC following site visits and the deployment of a physical marker.” Approval was granted with “strict conditions”, ensuring that parts of the seawall are replaced with low-level rock armour, which “not only reduces visibility but also enhances biodiversity by creating new habitats for marine life.” Sand replenishment at Catalan Bay is also planned.

Bunkering “unchanged”

Another clue about the treaty came in mid-February from Minister for Trade and the Port, Gemma Arias-Vásquez, during Gibraltar’s participation in International Energy Week held in the metropolis. There she told industry figures that the treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union “will have no impact on fuel supply operations in Gibraltar.” For Verdemar, this statement effectively consolidates a model full of environmental aggressions.

Verdemar denounces that activities such as anchoring and bunkering —supplying fuel to tankers— take place in the waters of Algeciras Bay and on Gibraltar’s eastern side within the protected area, something expressly prohibited by Article 10 of the SAC Use Plan.

Muñoz adds that Gibraltar has become the most important bunkering port in the Mediterranean, with more than 4.5 million tonnes of hydrocarbons transferred annually without required safety measures, minimal inspections and the promotion of irregular anchorages. “Gibraltar is continuously intensifying, as the years go by, the movement of fuel with the risks of spills and other consequences involved,” the environmental spokesperson adds.

A covert anchorage

This fuel transfer at sea entails the progressive colonisation of waters by Gibraltar, according to Verdemar. The group points to an alleged systematic breach of the regulations governing the Eastern Strait Special Area of Conservation (SAC), asserting that the Rock “illegally occupies” more than 20% of that protected space.

Muñoz recalls that after the grounding of the vessel Fedra at Europa Point (2007), Gibraltar established a 400-hectare anchorage area in the eastern zone. “Now, outside the disputed waters, which extend three miles east of Gibraltar, they have set up an external reserve anchorage of approximately 1,000 hectares within the Special Area of Conservation that serves as a waiting room for oil tankers,” the environmentalist underlines.

The conservationist notes that his group already opposed the Port Authority and Maritime Captaincy of Algeciras project to create two anchorage areas off Sotogrande (where bunkering or repair operations would not be allowed). “The Port of Algeciras had to comply with EU regulations and we filed objections against that initiative. Now, with what Gibraltar is doing, what happens to the Special Area of Conservation? Is it reduced? Is there any reason, or any agreement within those talks, for that Special Area of Conservation not to be protected by Natura 2000?”, the Verdemar representative reflects.

The environmental group once again appeals to EU institutions to halt the situation in the face of the Spanish Government’s “passivity” regarding the transformation of the Alboran Sea into an area full of oil tankers, with an evident risk of accident, collision or spill whose consequences could be irreversible for beaches, biodiversity, fishing and tourism.

“If the SAC use plans say that external anchorages cannot be established, nor ships with contaminating cargo —hydrocarbons in this case— accumulated there, and that fuel transfer cannot take place, and all of that is being breached, who is the authority that must speak up? We have always been told that if there is any agreement, Gibraltar must comply with all European regulations, exactly like any EU country. But we are seeing that this is not the case,” Muñoz complains.

For Verdemar, the optimism shown by several regional authorities contrasts with the environmental risks posed by a poorly drafted treaty. “I see everyone very happy. I don’t get into other issues, only environmental ones. But anchorages cannot be occupied and the Bay filled in without anyone saying absolutely anything", Muñoz concludes.